HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
Shivprakash Meena Son of Shri Meetha Lal Meena – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing based on settlement (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
Order :
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant submit that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute, therefore the FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings against the present accused-petitioner be quashed and set aside
4. Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledges the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and on instructions from the complainant, states that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR in question alongwith all consequential proceedings against the present accused-petitioner are quashed and set aside.
6. A bare perusal of the material on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them.
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing serves the ends of justice, distinct from compounding offences.
The court may quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes, even for non-compoundable offences, to prevent futile litigation and secure justice.
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, prioritizing justice and practicality over the formalities of compounding offences.
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing is distinct from compounding offences.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes amicably, emphasizing the distinction between quashing and compounding offences.
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing that such quashing is distinct from compounding offences and is guided by the ends of justice.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, emphasizing the distinction from compounding offences and focusing on the ends of justice.
The court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties, even for non-compoundable offences, if it serves the ends of justice.
The High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their dispute, and continuation would serve no useful purpose, particularly in cases with a civil flavor.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on private compromise when the nature of the offences is such that continuation would lead to oppression or injustice, particularly in civil-center....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.